The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-11-10
THE SUPREME COURT DEFINES ITS OWN
TERRITORY.

The decision of the supreme court of
the United States, IN the anarchists case,
is one that not only answers the hopes
and expectations of the law and order
people of the whole United States, a de-
cision that was founded upon sound law
and justifying facts, but, as establishing
a precedent of non interference by the
highest federal court Of the nation with
the state courts, in such matters criminal
as palpably are within the jurisdiction
of state conrts, it will be of very great
value as finally binding and defining the
status of all such cases. Plainly II
state enacts a law contrary 70 the spirit
and terms of the constitution, 1t Is the
right and duty of the highest tribunal
of the ration, when appealed to, TO see
70 il that citizen of the United States
is not injured by such an enactment
A man is not less q citizen of the United
States because he lives and has political
entity in any particular state. But this
care of the United States for her citizens
must be exercised within the bounds pre-
scribed by the constitution, and, when
state has passed laws not in conflict
with that constitution, the United
States government must keep hands
off. While this broad principle
is everywhere accepted. yet it has
been growing into custom in desperate
cases to hinge upon some constitutional
technically by means OF which to gain
delay, and If possible, a new trial And
it is this custom that needed checking.
In the Chicago anarchists case the su-
preme court, after deciding the Illinois
statute was constitutional, then, in unmis-
taxable terms, refused 10 go into discus
sion of matters of detail or methods of pro-
cedure under this constitutional statute.
The supreme court, in discussing the sp-
pellants point, said; 1T is not contended
that the subject to which the cross-e1am-
ination related was not pertinent to the
issue, and whether the cross-eIaminstlon
must be confined to matters pertinent to
the testimony in chief, or may be extended
to the matter in Issue, is certainly ques-
ton of state law in the courts of the state,
and not of federal law"
"a question of state law in the courts Of
the state;" this is the issue; this is the line
the Supreme court cannot pass, and, in thus
fixing so definitely, in this noted and most
serious case, the limit of federal interior
ence or control in state trials, the supreme
court has established precedent that the
states of the union have cause to indorse
and be grateful for. Affairs internal, mat
tiers strictly of state control, should re-
luctlantly be dragged before the eyes of
the nation and be submitted to federal
control, and the sooner the supreme
court is placed beyond inter
ruptions from appeals of this
kind, and asked to sdiudicate matters
really extra their jurisdiction, or what the
trainers of the instrument that de-
fines the status and scope of the
authority of that tribunal intended
should be their powers, the sooner this is
the rule observed and that court is left to
attend strictly to questions directly in a
line with the purpose for which it was
created, the sooner will its accumulated
business be disposed of, its docket, now
five years behind, be cleared, and questions
of great constitutional moment, that now
hang In allegiance, be decided.